Does anyone even understand this question, let alone the grammar used to ask it?

AI members should show where they live or what their native language is. That would forestall statements like the above. Please let us know where you're coming from. When registering, there is a way to show this. AppleInsider, why not make this a requirement.

Exactly. If you want to know what the full retail cost of an operating system is (neither an upgrade nor bundled with a hardware sale) you only need to look at Windows.

Just because there's very little stopping you installing a Snow Leopard upgrade on non-Apple hardware that doesn't mean you aren't still infringing copyright.

Copyright isn't at issue here unless the codebase of OS X has been modified and redistributed without permission of its authors. Copyright is based on authorship and in the case of software, the creation of code.

Even at that, with most of OS X based on Open Source BSD, including the kernel, Apple is not the copyright owner of the code, the BSD community is. Apple is the copyright owner of the GUI and other proprietary, closed source parts of OS X.

At most, what is in violation here is civil contract dispute between Apple and the person who has broken the terms of the Apple OS X EULA. Apple would need to show material harm from such a contractual violation and if the user has paid for the license, that will be difficult to claim on the part of Apple because they have profited from the sale of the license. Such a case would most likely be settled with the user giving up their right of use of OS X in return for a refund of the cost of the license.

Apple should make a small and pocketable full Mac, like the OQO or the Vaio P. 350 g would be awesome. No more than 600 g. Video-out and USB 2 ports for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations from NATIVE files. Thus, an Intel Atom is required instead of the ARM processor.

AI members should show where they live or what their native language is. That would forestall statements like the above. Please let us know where you're coming from. When registering, there is a way to show this. AppleInsider, why not make this a requirement.

not quite the "expoloding" number of hackintoshes. They don't even make an infinitesimal dent in the market. Apple treated netbooks (which *are* on the market in abundance) as if they didn't exist, and didn't even flinch. What did consumers do in response? They bought *more* macs.

That depends, would you rather sell 3 million highly profitable $1000+ computers per quarter and make a lot of money. OR would you prefer to sell 9 million dirt cheap $300 netbooks and make nothing?

I would rather have a deeper penetration of OSX used by larger numbers of the public which would increase market share and spur on sales of the more expensive machines as well once the OS is ingrained in the public's consciousness- especially young students. Alas it's like 2 years too late.

I would rather have a deeper penetration of OSX used by larger numbers of the public which would increase market share and spur on sales of the more expensive machines as well once the OS is ingrained in the public's consciousness- especially young students. Alas it's like 2 years too late.

Its reasons like this that I will never buy an Apple product again (and sold all my Apple computers) until Apple realizes they are just being immature.

If the whole netbook market was something they never went after, and Apple sales have been increasing even with Hackintoshes around, then why pull a silly move like this? Its like going up to the weakest kid in school and beating them [why is there no gender neutral word in English for this case?] up just to show you can.

Anyhow, as one who has three Atom based computers at home (two netbooks, one desktop) news like this makes me sad. I don't have OS X installed on any of them, but I guess if I wanted to install SL, then I'm pretty much out of luck.

Also, I encourage all Hackintosh builders to buy their Mac OS X disks. Don't pirate, don't download. Just go to the Apple store and forfeit 30 bucks to their empire and be done with them.

Lastly: I think this signals that we won't be seeing the Atom in the tablet, and therefore, I doubt we'll see full running OS X. To me this screams FAIL. (Think, THREE platforms for devs to work on? I'm sure they'll be happy about that!)

I see Netbooks everywhere. Apple are missing a trick by not selling an official OSX Atom based netbook.

Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?

Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?

Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?

Yes, Apple doesn't need to sell low margin netbooks or, even, it can be worse as you have said.

True- but they could have made a lot more and more importantly penetrated the OS deeper. It will be a lot harder now that Windows 7 has a lot of support behind it - more than Vista. I may just be buying my first Windows 7 PC for $500 after seeing all those Best Buy models in yesterdays flier. There are some pretty good deals out there now.

Arguably, Apple has a much weaker case against consumers who buy a legal copy of OSX, and then put it on a Hackintosh. The consumer, however, must be doing it for non-commercial purposes. Psystar's problem is it is actually trying to make a buck off of infringing Apple's copyright.

However, for most users to buy a legal copy of OSX they must buy the $169 copy if they don't already own a Mac. Most Hackintosh people will tell you what they are doing is OK because they paid Apple $29 for the OS. Problem is that Apple specifically states that that is an update version for people switching from Leopard. The $169 version is the full install version. So, if you paid Apple $169 for the OS, you have a much stronger case for what you are doing is reasonable.

There seems to be some confusion here about the term "legal copy". In one sense, any copy of Mac OS X you buy is a legal copy, yet, the license you receive for payment for that copy does not allow you to legally install it on anything but Apple hardware. The $169 version is an upgrade for users on Mac OS versions prior to Leopard. It's not a copy that can legally be used without restriction.

I don't think you can call someone a thief, who takes the effort to figure it out how to run his favorite OS on a computer model category Apple is obviously too lazy to offer!

My are we feeling entitled today. Let me guess Gen-X? Gen-Y maybe?

A hacker took the effort to figure out TJ Maxx's computer system and retrieved credit card information that he was not authorized to take. Also not a thief? After all, per your criterion, he 'took the effort' to figure it out and that gives him all sorts of privileges.

A hacker took the effort to figure out TJ Maxx's computer system and retrieved credit card information that he was not authorized to take. Also not a thief? After all, per your criterion, he 'took the effort' to figure it out and that gives him all sorts of privileges.

Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?

Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.

True- but they could have made a lot more and more importantly penetrated the OS deeper. It will be a lot harder now that Windows 7 has a lot of support behind it - more than Vista. I may just be buying my first Windows 7 PC for $500 after seeing all those Best Buy models in yesterdays flier. There are some pretty good deals out there now.

7 is definitely an improvement over Vista, but quite honestly I don't see a huge difference. The only reason I bought it is because I got it for cheap from Amazon (pre-order).

Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.

Except they have had no impact on Apple. Apple has ignored netbooks without even flinching, and consumers responded by buying *more* Macs. In a recession.

Copyright isn't at issue here unless the codebase of OS X has been modified and redistributed without permission of its authors. Copyright is based on authorship and in the case of software, the creation of code.

Even at that, with most of OS X based on Open Source BSD, including the kernel, Apple is not the copyright owner of the code, the BSD community is. Apple is the copyright owner of the GUI and other proprietary, closed source parts of OS X.

At most, what is in violation here is civil contract dispute between Apple and the person who has broken the terms of the Apple OS X EULA. Apple would need to show material harm from such a contractual violation and if the user has paid for the license, that will be difficult to claim on the part of Apple because they have profited from the sale of the license. Such a case would most likely be settled with the user giving up their right of use of OS X in return for a refund of the cost of the license.

This is entirely a copyright issue. You don't buy Mac OS X, you buy a license to use a copy of Mac OS X under certain restrictions. Also, Apple is entirely in compliance with the BSD licensing, so that's irrelevant to your argument. The material harm is that the use r is enjoying the benefits of Mac OS X while Apple has lost the revenue from the required hardware purchase. It's a clear violation of copyright law, there is no ambiguity.

Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.

Of course they are. People are buying them because they're cheap. For a lot of people, it'll do what they need of a computer which is email and web. Not saying you can't do more with them, but that is all many need (and maybe a music and photo app).

True- but they could have made a lot more and more importantly penetrated the OS deeper. It will be a lot harder now that Windows 7 has a lot of support behind it - more than Vista. I may just be buying my first Windows 7 PC for $500 after seeing all those Best Buy models in yesterdays flier. There are some pretty good deals out there now.

This is basically the cloning argument restated, and it's an argument entirely without merit in the current market.

Here, in Spain, is not a copyright issue. You're not infringing Apple copyright installing OS X in a non Apple computer, you're only allegedly breaking an article of the EULA. An article that can be illegal according to Spanish consumer law.

... most of OS X based on Open Source BSD, including the kernel, Apple is not the copyright owner of the code, the BSD community is.

Well, the Mac OS X kernel is based upon Mach and not the general BSDs per se, and there's quite a bit of GNU in the user-land tools. But that trivial technical detail aside, you nail it with:

Quote:

Apple is the copyright owner of the GUI and other proprietary, closed source parts of OS X.

Indeed they are. Anyone can take the Darwin kernel, and run much of what constitutes the Unix portions of OS X. But they can't legitimately run Windowserver onwards and have the OS X graphical experience on non-Apple hardware.

Quote:

At most, what is in violation here is civil contract dispute between Apple and the person who has broken the terms of the Apple OS X EULA.

Well, the EULA is an extension of the rights you have to Apple's copyright materials (very little, by default.) They permit you to use their copyright materials on hardware that they have designed, manufactured, and sold to you, and, err, that's it.

Quote:

Apple would need to show material harm from such a contractual violation and if the user has paid for the license, that will be difficult to claim on the part of Apple because they have profited from the sale of the license.

Such as the loss of sales from hardware, perhaps?

Basically, if you have the smarts to get OS X running on your own hardware, on your own. Great! Wonderful for you. You're probably not going to materially affect Apple's profits. (But don't come whinging that Apple owe you something if it later stops working.)

Start trying to do it for profit, as Psystar are attempting to do, and you should expect to be hit hard.

I would strongly disagree. Tinkerers, as you call them, are generally regarded as weirdos by their families and neighbors. They usually have ultra-inflated egos, tend to turn off people rather than influence them, and are true bores. The more they tell you how tech savvy they are the more you know they aren't. So whatever they recommend is considered to be too complicated to use by the average Joe. The old Saturday Night Live "Your Company's Computer Guy" skit about sums them up.

So, no, they are not good for any platform let alone Apple.

Didn't Steve Wozniak "tinker" by buying some parts from the local electronics store to build a blue box to bypass paying the phone company for their products and services?

You don't buy Mac OS X, you buy a license to use a copy of Mac OS X under certain restrictions.

I believe that it's not as clear cut as that.

There have been murmors in the past. I'm sorry to be vague, but there was a story going around on these boards about a year ago that at least one US judge had ruled that the EULA was illegal, and that it was indeed a 'sale'.

This is fundamental, because if you buy something, you can do with it as you see fit.

1) We don't know what proportion of hackintosh users actually bought OS X for their computers. Let's not automatically assume Apple is giving up a big chunk of OS sales on this one.

2) I've yet to hear a strong argument for how it hurts Apple to thwart hackintosh installations. If it doesn't, in fact, hurt Apple to do this then why wouldn't they try to shut it down or at least curtain the activity?

I guess because Jobs and Woz used to do the same type of thing when they were younger? It's just a matter of principle. The shoe is on the other foot, and they don't like it.